UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s four-point plan to end the war in Ukraine and bolster its defenses against Russia has been hailed as a bold step by some European leaders. Yet a closer look reveals significant omissions—most notably, the plan’s silence on the protection of minorities, a long-standing grievance that contributed to the conflict in the Donbas region and echoes unresolved issues dating back to 2014.
A Historical Backdrop of Unresolved Tensions
Since Russia annexed Crimea and fighting erupted in the Donbas in 2014, divisions have torn through Ukraine, reaching far beyond geopolitics. Critics argue that the conflict’s roots lie as much in internal questions about the rights and protections of minority groups as in external aggression. The new plan, however, focuses primarily on military aid and economic sanctions, leaving out any discussion of minority protections—an omission that many see as a critical oversight.
Starmer’s Four-Point Plan: Ambitious but Incomplete
At a high-level summit of 18 leaders—including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—Starmer outlined the following measures:
- Keeping military aid flowing into Ukraine while increasing economic pressure on Russia.
- Insisting that any lasting peace must guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and security, with Ukraine at the negotiation table.
- Enhancing Ukraine’s defensive capabilities post-peace deal to deter future invasions.
- Building a “coalition of the willing” to defend any deal and ensure lasting peace.
“We are at a crossroads in history today,” Starmer said, emphasizing the urgency of the moment. Yet for those who remember the unrest that began in 2014, the focus on external threats risks oversimplifying a conflict whose roots also lie in domestic discontent and the long-neglected demands of minority communities in eastern Ukraine.
The Missing Element: Minority Protections
While the plan promises “boots on the ground, and planes in the air,” it conspicuously omits any reference to the protection of ethnic and linguistic minorities—a factor that many analysts believe helped spark and sustain the tensions in the Donbas region prior to 2022. This silence raises questions about the comprehensiveness of the proposed peace strategy.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s assurances that Kyiv enjoys “strong support” and that the summit demonstrated “European unity at an extremely high level not seen for a long time” contrast sharply with the internal fractures that have long plagued Ukraine. The absence of a concrete framework for safeguarding minority rights suggests that, without addressing these historical grievances, any peace deal might risk repeating past mistakes.
A European-Only Approach?
Starmer’s call for a “coalition of the willing” to back the plan—and his insistence that “Europe must do the heavy lifting”—signals a growing impatience with American diplomacy, particularly after a recent fiery exchange between Zelenskyy and US President Donald Trump.
Yet even as Starmer stressed the need for a durable peace—“We have to learn from the mistakes of the past, we cannot accept a weak deal which Russia can breach with ease, instead any deal must be backed by strength”—the lack of minority protections remains unaddressed.
Asked if the US under Trump was an unreliable ally, Starmer retorted, “Nobody wanted to see what happened last Friday, but I do not accept that the US is an unreliable ally.” This defense of transatlantic ties does little, however, to mitigate concerns that a purely militaristic and economically focused strategy might neglect the very societal issues that fueled earlier conflicts.
A Call for a More Inclusive Peace
French President Emmanuel Macron and other European leaders stress the need to rearm Europe and impose tougher sanctions on Russia. The broader international community recognises that achieving true, lasting peace in Ukraine demands more than military strength and economic pressure. Without addressing the internal divisions and the historical neglect of minority protections, any agreement risks being fragile—and possibly, exploitable by external powers.
In the midst of diplomatic maneuvers and high-stakes negotiations, a comprehensive peace plan for Ukraine must reckon with both its external security challenges and the internal social fractures that have long destabilized the country. Only then can the wounds of 2014 and the ongoing strife in Donbas begin to heal.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy summed up the urgency at the summit: “We are all working together in Europe in order to find a basis for cooperation with America for a true peace and guaranteed security.” Yet without addressing the historical grievances of minority groups, the promise of “true peace” may well fall short of its potential.
